Suchergebnisse

Mainstream human rights activists typically attribute the signature successes of their movement (e.g., antislavery, Gandhi, Martin Luther King) to their uncompromisingly principled stance on behalf of the weak and the exploited. Naming and shaming and ending impunity loom large in their lore. This attitude works well to recruit idealistic activists, but their moralism, legalism, and secular universalism miss the central role of the self-interest of the majority in powering the progress of human rights. A core of idealists has defined aspirational goals, but progress has depended on support from majority mass movements and reform parties that gained power through expedient compromise. The human rights enterprise is now facing fierce pushback from illiberal strongmen and populists who counter-shame the liberal order as decadent, degenerate, and threatening to deeply rooted values. Too often, contemporary rights rhetoric plays into the hands of these illiberal critics. Human Rights for Pragmatists explains how rights-based societies can recover a more accurate narrative of their past pragmatic successes, repair their tactical flaws, and withstand illiberal challenges.

Human rights advocates continue to use shaming as a central tool despite recognizing its declining effectiveness. Shame is indeed a potent motivator, but its effects are often counterproductive for this purpose. Especially when wielded by cultural outsiders in ways that appear to condemn local social practices, shaming is likely to produce anger, resistance, backlash, and deviance from outgroup norms, or denial and evasion. Shaming can easily be interpreted as a show of contempt, which risks triggering fears for the autonomy and security of the group. In these circumstances, established religious and elite networks can employ traditional normative counter-narratives to recruit a popular base for resistance. If this counter-mobilization becomes entrenched in mass social movements, popular ideology, and enduring institutions, the unintended consequences of shaming may leave human rights advocates farther from their goal.

Der Artikel beschäftigt sich mit dem Zusammenhang von Anthropologie und Kriegsführung, mit der Hoffnung, dass sich nach Ende des Kalten Krieges und den daraus resultierenden Strukturveränderungen im internationalen System die internationalen Beziehungen befrieden und eine neue Ära des "wohlmeinenden Miteinanders" einstellt.Kulturelle Einflussfaktoren werden untersucht, Bestimmungsfaktoren von Verhalten unter Anarchie und kriegerische Bestrebungen. Zudem werden bisherige Forschungsergebnisse dargelegt zu Krieg und Frieden unter Anarchiebedingungen

Aus US-amerikanischer Sicht

Decision makers in international crises seek to reconcile two values: on the one hand, avoiding the loss of prestige and credibility that capitulation would entail and, on the other, avoiding war. These values conflict with each other, in the sense that any policy designed to further one of them will jeopardize the other. Cognitive theory suggests that in ambiguous circumstances a decision maker will suppress uncomfortable value conflicts, conceptualizing his dilemma in such a way that the values appear to be consonant. President Kennedy's process of decision and rationalization in the Cuban missile crisis fits this pattern. He contended that compromise would allay the risk of war in the short run only at the cost of increasing it in the long run. Thus, he saw his policy of no compromise as furthering both the goal of maintaining U.S. prestige and credibility and the goal of avoiding war.